Can Kashmir be far away?

INDIA’ External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, stated in New Delhi on Thursday that “adjustments were possible” in borders with China in Arunachal Pardesh and with Pakistan in the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir despite the fact the Indian Parliament had declared the two territories as integral part of his country. He explained that the composite dialogue with Pakistan covered the issue of the future of the disputed state and that the two countries were discussing proposals and counter-proposals.
Interestingly, the Indian Minister’s observations come in the wake of hope expressed by President Pervez Musharraf on Thursday in his meeting at Islamabad with the visiting Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gohr Store that a peaceful settlement of the core issue between two nuclear-armed neighbours was possible.
President Musharraf told the visiting Foreign Minister of Norway that Islamabad and New Delhi were continuing the peace process for amicable and peaceful resolution of their disputes including Kashmir. He observed that differences between the two countries had narrowed down on Siachin and Sir Creek issues the two sides had reached a stage where a final accord could be concluded. With the solution of these two issues, one hopes the leadership in South Asia could demonstrate greater courage and vision to resolve the issue of Jammu and Kashmir which has bedevilled relations between two major powers. The conflict in the sub continent was explosive and to avoid a n armed clash between two neighbours who have already fought and paid a heavy price for three wars during the past over 50 years on the future of the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir.
Kashmir continues to be a flash point and it is now the responsibility of the leaders of Pakistan and India to help establish peace in South Asia to help alleviate miseries of over a billion people and ensure accelerated development for their socio-economic uplift. Without peace the dream of prosperity in the sub continent would remain elusive. To translate this dream into reality the parties to dispute, especially India, shall have to demonstrate courage and vision to address the core issue.
If in the words of President Musharraf thorny issues like Siachin and Sir Creek are nearing a resolution, can Kashmir be far behind?
Of course, the ball is in India’s court. It is no service to peace to show obduracy. To decide decades-long outstanding issue, the parties shall have to be flexible. “Adjustments” should not be cosmetic. These have to be substantive to ensure satisfaction of the parties and justice to 13 million people of Jammu and Kashmir who continue to be subjected to Indian Army’s atrocities. President Musharraf has advanced bold proposals bout shift in Pak stand on the dispute can not be unilateral.

Turkey’s albatross

Turkey’s supporters claim that the reason its bid to join the EU has been put on ice is because the Republic of Cyprus has vetoed it and/or because the Europeans do not want a Muslim-majority state to join. They are wrong — at least for the moment. It is not the Cypriot government that has effectively blocked Turkish membership for the time being; it was a collective EU decision. The fact is that, at the moment, it is Ankara that is blocking Turkey’s accession to the EU. It has played the accession negotiations incredibly badly.
The process to join the EU is like a plane speeding along a runway; there is a point after which take-off — and membership — becomes inevitable. The Republic of Cyprus got in despite the disaster of the 2003 referendum, when the Turks said “Yes” to the UN’s reunification plans and the Greeks said “No”, because it was too late to halt the process. Likewise Bulgaria and Romania are going to get in despite most ordinary Europeans not wanting any new members in the foreseeable future. Again, it is too late to prevent their joining.
Ankara has not grasped this simple fact. If it played by the EU negotiation rules, then membership will happen whatever the opposition. A momentum will take over. The Cypriots and others would not be given the chance to say “No”. There would not be any grounds for a veto. On the issue of Cyprus, Turkey has tried to have its cake and eat it too — and this cannot be done. It promised last year to lift its blockade of Greek Cypriot ports and airports but refused unless Europe suspended its blockade of Turkish Cypriot ports — in short trying to force a de facto recognition of northern Cyprus.
That is a nonstarter. No one other than Ankara recognizes the Turkish Cypriot state. Saudi Arabia does not, Egypt does not, no one else in the Middle East does, nor any other country in the world. Europe is not going to change its mind on northern Cyprus. Turkey has to make a choice; either it is committed to the Turkish Cypriot state or it is committed to Europe. It cannot have both. The option is not available. The issue is bigger than blockades. Its military presence in northern Cyprus will be the next stumbling block. That was one of the prime reasons why Greek Cypriots failed to endorse the 2003 UN plan: Turkish withdrawal was not on offer. The EU has so far steered clear of the issue, hoping that it can be resolved as part of an overall Cypriot settlement. But there is no way that it is going to allow a country to join if that country occupies part of a member state, and that state objects to the occupation.
Cyprus is an albatross around Turkey’s neck. Like the US in Iraq, it needs an exit strategy. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation, the cold political reality is that until it gets out of Cyprus, it is not going to get into Europe. Turkey should perhaps use the time afforded by the negotiations being put on hold to face up to that fact and deal with it.

—Arab News